They believe it "probably resulted" from being unable to manipulate the body. What do they base that claim on? Possible rigor mortis? If so, that is unfounded, as no mention was made of the body being too stiff to manipulate.
As usual, you selectively paraphrase--the original doesn't just say "inability to," it says "
failure or inability to"--that is, possibly they
chose not to do it (because they were in a hurry, or it wasn't considered necessary). You have repeatedly characterized the autopsy as "a complete farce," yet, whenever it suits you, you claim that proper procedures must necessarily have been followed to the letter.
Also as usual, you have difficulty with issues of the nature of proof. If the doctors tried and failed to manipulate Kennedy's body into the proper position (assuming they even knew what the proper position was), why do you assume that Dr. Humes would have explicitly mentioned that in his report?
Here is the testimony of Dr. Finck, whose job during the autopsy was to actually examine the wounds.
Quote:
Dr. Pierre Finck (Shaw trial)
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.
Q: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?
A: The first fraction of an inch. [emphasis added]
|
Quote:
Dr. Pierre Finck (HSCA)
Mr. PURDY. When you learned that on the morning of November 23 that there was evidence of a wound of exit in the front of the neck, did that in any way conflict with the conclusions you had reached during the autopsy?
Dr. FINCK. No, because it was a wound of exit corresponding to the wound of entry. I had positively identified in the upper back/lower neck so that made a bullet track with an entry and an exit and I was satisfied.
Mr. PURDY. If you had known during the autopsy that there was a wound of exit in the front of the throat, would you have taken or exercised any different autopsy procedures than you did do?
Dr. FINCK. The interpretation would have been less difficult at the time. I can't say what I would have done if I had seen -- I would have asked for a whole body X ray films anyway -- anyway -- to answer your question....
Mr. PURDY. But on the issue that that relates to I wonder if you could go into a little more detail. You say you were primarily there to examine the wounds. What area did you do in probing the area and what did you find from doing that?
Dr. FINCK. The probing was unsuccessful.
Dr. WECHT. Could you describe in a little more detail what "unsuccessful" means?
Dr. FINCK. Well, you cannot go into a track when -- you know, this is difficult to explain. You can make an artificial track if you push hard enough with an instrument so you go gently to see that there is a track, and the fact that you don't find a track with a probe may be because of contraction of muscles after death.
Dr. WECHT. Was the probe done with a metal probe?
Dr. FINCK. That is why I said probing was unsuccessful.
Mr. PURDY. How far into the body did the probe go before you were afraid it might create an artificial track?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know. [emphasis added]
|
As you'll undoubtedly attempt to "spin" Finck's testimony,
turbonium, I pose the following specific questions to you.
1) Did Dr. Finck state that muscle contraction of the corpse could result in failure to find a missile track, even if one existed?
2) Did Dr. Finck characterize his probing as "unsuccessful?"
3) Did Dr. Finck state that muscle contraction was the reason that his probing of JFK's back wound was unsuccessful?
4) Did Dr. Finck accept that the throat wound was the exit wound for the back wound?
5) Given your answers to 1-4 above, do you still insist that Dr. Finck established "beyond any doubt" that the back wound was a "shallow entry wound?" If you still so insist, a) what are your reasons for so insisting, and b) why should anyone continue to take you seriously?
FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier explained to the WC that the Carcano was a low velocity weapon: "The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight....This has a low velocity." 3 H 414
What difference is there between a low velocity weapon and a high velocity weapon that you do not understand?
This quotation is taken out of context (a standard conspiracist tactic). If you read Frazier's entire testimony, it is clear that he means that the Carcano had a lower muzzle velocity than the other military rifles discussed. However, it still has a much higher muzzle velocity than pistols, submachine guns, or shotguns, which are true low-velocity weapons.
See
here for Frazier's complete testimony.
It gets worse for your argument. Effective engagement range with a rifle in most situations is about 200 yards. The first shot that struck Kennedy was at about 1/4 that range. Also, bullets with higher muzzle velocities tend to slow down more quickly, as air friction is proportional to velocity^2. So, a Mannlicher-Carcano shot at 50 yards will have a velocity comparable to that of many higher-powered rounds at 200 yards. See
here for some ballistics tables that illustrate this.
[edit: Finally, despite your attempt to muddy the waters by raising spurious legal objections to the question, several of the Parkland doctors who saw the wound testified that it could have been caused by a 6.5x55 mm shot from above and behind exiting through the throat.]
Uh, Spitfire, I really hate to break it to you, but the autopsy photos the Parkland doctors looked at for comparison were of the body before the doctors at Bethesda were said to have begun doing anything to the body. Or do you think they only took photos after making incisions?
No. The doctors were allowed to view
all the autopsy photos. See
here. Note particularly Dr. Peters' comment about the brain incision.
[edit: hyperlink]
[edit: line break]